Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Keeping foul-hooked sockeye?

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question Keeping foul-hooked sockeye?

    Check it out: http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/...22new003.shtml

    There's a proposal out there suggesting that anglers be allowed to retain foul-hooked sockeye when fishing/flossing for reds. If passed, it's suggested that the new rules would get anglers off the river more quickly as their limits would be filled more easily, and the rule would ease fish abuse since foul-hooked fish could be retained rather than released.

    All methods and means stay the same. Anyone blatantly snagging would be subject to a citation.

    What does everyone think?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,927

    Default

    Two thoughts. First was that it opens a can or worms. How do you look for blatant snagging if keeping snagged fish is legal? And then the confusion it would cause allowing reds to be kept but not other species. What's the result? Will more fish be taken or will the total take remain approximately the same. Second thought was if it gets people off the river sooner, maybe it shoudl be looked at. Plus if you can dip net the reds what's the difference in snagging? Not "sport fishing" either way. So maybe it should be given serioius consideeration but I would probaably be 51% to 40% agains but that's just me and I could be wrong.

  3. #3

    Default

    Whether or not the proposal has merit, the concept of using it to reduce angling pressure will only work if folks have to quit at their limit rather than continuing to catch and release.

    Is there a provision for that in there?

  4. #4
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    I agree with it. I suspect that after a long fight with a foul hooked fish that causes damage to the fish, the probability that the fish is going to die anyway are quite high.

    At least if you can keep a foul hooked fish, you won't be turning one loose that can't survive. Escapement numbers are meaningless if the fish turned loose can't survive the rest of the trip to the spawning area. To me the current rule is goobermint mandated wanton waste.

    Rotating anglers off the streams faster can't be a bad thing either.
    Now what ?

  5. #5
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,768

    Default if you are fishing sockeye..

    you are already blatantly snagging<grin>
    just hoping to blatantly snag 'em in the mouth!!!
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida
    Posts
    781

    Default AGF&G Advisory Committee Views...

    Interesting text.
    Reasonable views.
    Worth the dialogue.

    I would support anything that helps to preserve a fishing area or species based on reason.

    http:www.alaskanauthor.com

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,847

    Default issues

    Here are a few issues on this proposal.

    1) the harvest of sockeye will go up significantly. Most anglers on the river do not even catch 1 sockeye and less than 10% catch 3 or more. Therefore, if anglers can keep snagged fish it is only logical that the harvest will go up.

    2) If the harvest increases above the sonar goal then the sonar goal will have to be adjusted upward. At low run strengths if the goal is adjusted upward it increases the probability of river closures - take this year for example. Therefore, this proposal should not be passed at all goal levels. It should only happen when the sonar count is projected to go over 750,000 sockeye.

    3) the reason people come to the Kenai is to catch sockeye so if the rate of return is increased then it is unlikely people will leave the river faster. They will stay to catch 3 or 6 fish when today most do not even catch 1 per day.

    4) More people coming to the Kenai means more bank damage and crowding at public lands. The assumption people will leave faster is built on a false premise.

    5) On large returns this proposal makes sense since fish should be harvested to maintain high sustained yields in the Kenai. However, controlling of people becomes a major concern to avoid the negative impacts.

    6) Relative to the ethics issue we have a split personality on snagging. As anglers we embrace it at the Homer lagoon but say no in the river. Not sure what that means.

    7) enforcement may not be an issue since protection officers cite people for snagging even if they do not catch a fish. They use the 180 degree rule. If someone is yanking so the rod goes through 180 degrees then they are snagging. The courts appear to accept this.

    Just a few issues that should be discussed. There have been proposals like this before the Board of Fish every Board session and they fail mostly because sport anglers do not want snagging in freshwater. Allocation issues also are discussed but today the existing sport fish allocation could handle the increase at high run strengths with no change in the plans.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile More thoughts. . .

    Nerka,
    1) I dunno, by far most anglers I've observed do pretty well.
    2) Maybe this proposal should become an management option when it's obvious the river will exceed escapement goals?
    3) Again, I dunno. We have the cooker/canner/freezer crowd, who will be neither deterred nor encouraged by such a proposal. Other visitors are usually limited by time.
    4) I think it's too early to call any of the proposal's assumptions or premises "false." Which premise? How false? People coming to the Kenai are and will be increasingly limited by space in which to fish.
    5) Again, why not just make it a management option? And should we be thinking about controlling people? Isn't controlling the resource itself, methods, limits, accessability, and means essentially controlling people's participation?
    6) Those opposed to snagging in the guise of sportfishing will remain opposed. Those who don't object to snagging as a means of harvest will remain unopposed.
    7) Enforcement will be freed from the Gordian Knot of trying to figure out where the hook engaged the fish and will be freed to concentrate on those doing the 180-degree "Kenai flip."

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,982

    Default

    What about limiting hook size to go along with the regulation?

  10. #10
    Member Dirtofak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Creek
    Posts
    2,268

    Default

    Personally, I would like to see this statewide. Let the meat hunters get their meat and go home. Harvesting salmon is just that, harvesting. Be it net or hook. The catch and release angler would see less crowding at times. Raising fuel costs make it seem smarter to raise the success rate in fewer trips. Fewer trips equal fewer anglers equal more open parking spaces equal less pollution equal less bank erosion etc...... Adjusting the quotas would allow the managers the tools to keep the fishery sustainable. Seems like a win-win to me. People fill freezer/planet less polluted/anglers less crowded/managers able to manage.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Nerka,
    1) I dunno, by far most anglers I've observed do pretty well.

    ADF&G studies on angler success in the sockeye fishery has documented the figures I quote.

    2) Maybe this proposal should become an management option when it's obvious the river will exceed escapement goals?

    My thinking also.
    3) Again, I dunno. We have the cooker/canner/freezer crowd, who will be neither deterred nor encouraged by such a proposal. Other visitors are usually limited by time.

    The existing crowd may not care but we may create a new crowd of cooker/canner/freezers.

    4) I think it's too early to call any of the proposal's assumptions or premises "false." Which premise? How false? People coming to the Kenai are and will be increasingly limited by space in which to fish.

    The premise is that anglers will leave the river faster or that effort will go down. The data indicates that people will come and stay on the river bank if fishing is easy and the limits higher. The Russian River is a prime example. Why does ADF&G not go to 6 or 12 fish up there in large runs? The reason is that when they do people stay on the river and the campgrounds do not turn over. When they keep it at 3 fish people leave and more people have an opportunity to harvest fish. In addition, effort goes up when the paper says fishing is great. I believe that if snagging is allowed from the start of the season effort will increase, especially from non-residents who do not have refined technique for sockeye.


    5) Again, why not just make it a management option? And should we be thinking about controlling people? Isn't controlling the resource itself, methods, limits, accessability, and means essentially controlling people's participation?

    Controlling people is one issue but with large sections of private property, a sport fishing organization that wants to build boardwalkds along the whole river, and a tourist industry who likes more not less visitors I doubt that will happen via fishing regulations.

    6) Those opposed to snagging in the guise of sportfishing will remain opposed. Those who don't object to snagging as a means of harvest will remain unopposed.

    Only if the ethics of snagging is their main issue. However, some residents of this area may not like a full open snag fishery if it increases crowding on the river or in the community.

    7) Enforcement will be freed from the Gordian Knot of trying to figure out where the hook engaged the fish and will be freed to concentrate on those doing the 180-degree "Kenai flip."
    Actually, enforcement probably going away for a variety of reasons. At least seeing a fish foul hooked is easier to define than the arc of the set.
    However, I suspect enforcement will use this regulation to pull people off the river since they really do not like to be out there anyway. Since enforcement went into the State Troopers the powers to be want more time on rape, crime, and other social issues than fish and game violations.

    I still am having a hard time figuring out the quote buttons so sorry for the presentation.

  12. #12
    Member AKBighorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    What about limiting hook size to go along with the regulation?
    Hook size is already limited. A legal hook can't have more than a 3/8" gap between hook and shank if I remember correctly.

  13. #13
    Member AKBighorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Here are a few issues on this proposal.

    6) Relative to the ethics issue we have a split personality on snagging. As anglers we embrace it at the Homer lagoon but say no in the river. Not sure what that means.
    Homer lagoon is a terminal fishery correct? That being the case why not allow snagging to harvest fish rather than pollute the water with carcasses from a fishery that we created. I can't think of a river that any salmon run in that is a terminal fishery. You couldn't possibly allow full fledged snagging in the rivers if you want to get any escapement that will amount to anything. My .02

  14. #14

    Default

    the 3/8" gap is only a regulation in the fly fish only area I think.

  15. #15

    Default

    Yes, yes and yes. Fully support this proposal. It would send a message to the entire world that we finally recognize our past digressions and are willing to do what is right. These fish are snagged, everyone of them. Tell the truth guys. Oh, I saw it strike the fly. BS, Yes I am calling you on that little tale.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,847

    Default Akres - pulling our tail

    Akres, not going to take the bait. Salmon have a brain the size of my fingernail. They react both to what they preceive as food but more importantly predators and other salmon. Therefore, to say all fish are snagged is baiting us. You and I know better.

  17. #17
    Moderator Alaskacanoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    1,443

    Default what do Sokeye eat?

    The diet of Sokeye is different than any of the other 4 species of Pacific Salmon. They do not chase food around, as their diet is well... here it is


    <H1>Sockeye Salmon


    The sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), often referred to as "red" or "blueback" salmon, occurs in the North Pacific and Arctic oceans and associated freshwater systems. This species ranges south as far as the Klamath River in California and northern Hokkaido in Japan, to as far north as far as Bathurst Inlet in the Canadian Arctic and the Anadyr River in Siberia. Aboriginal people considered sockeye salmon to be an important food source and either ate them fresh or dried them for winter use. Today sockeye salmon support one of the most important commercial fisheries on the Pacific coast of North America, are increasingly sought after in recreational fisheries, and remain an important mainstay of many subsistence users.
    General description: Sockeye salmon can be distinguished from Chinook, coho, and pink salmon by the lack of large, black spots and from chum salmon by the number and shape of gill rakers on the first gill arch. Sockeye salmon have 28 to 40 long, slender, rough or serrated closely set rakers on the first arch. Chum salmon have 19 to 26 short, stout, smooth rakers.
    Immature and prespawning sockeye salmon are elongate, fusiform, and somewhat laterally compressed. They are metallic green blue on the back and top of the head, iridescent silver on the sides, and white or silvery on the belly. Some fine black speckling may occur on the back, but large spots are absent. Juveniles, while in fresh water, have the same general coloration as immature sockeye salmon in the ocean, but are less iridescent. Juveniles also have dark, oval parr marks on their sides. These parr marks are short-less than the diameter of the eye-and rarely extend below the lateral line.
    Breeding males develop a humped back and elongated, hooked jaws filled with sharp caniniform teeth. Both sexes turn brilliant to dark red on the back and sides, pale to olive-green on the head and upper jaw, and white on the lower jaw.
    Life history: Sockeye salmon are anadromous: they live in the sea and enter freshwater systems to spawn. After hatching, juvenile sockeye salmon may spend up to four years in fresh water before migrating to sea as silvery smolt weighing only a few ounces. They grow quickly in the sea, usually reaching a size of 4 to 8 pounds after one to four years. Mature sockeye salmon travel thousands of miles from ocean feeding areas to spawn in the same freshwater system where they were born. Little is known about the navigation mechanisms or cues they use on the high seas, although some evidence suggests that they may be able to use cues from the earth's magnetic field. Once near their natal freshwater system, sockeye salmon use olfactory cues to guide them home. Like all Pacific salmon, sockeye salmon die within a few weeks after spawning.
    Maturing sockeye salmon return to freshwater systems from the ocean during the summer months, and most populations show little variation in their arrival time on the spawning grounds from year to year. Freshwater systems with lakes produce the greatest number of sockeye salmon. Spawning usually occurs in rivers, streams, and upwelling areas along lake beaches. The female selects the spawning site, digs a nest (redd) with her tail, and deposits eggs in the downstream portion of the redd as one or more males swim beside her and fertilize the eggs as they are extruded. After each spawning act, the female covers the eggs by dislodging gravel at the upstream end of the redd with her tail. A female usually deposits about five batches of eggs in a redd. Depending upon her size, a female produces from 2,000 to 4,500 eggs.
    Eggs hatch during the winter, and the young sac-fry, or alevins, remain in the gravel, living off the material stored in their yolk sacs, until early spring. At this time they emerge from the gravel as fry and move into rearing areas. In systems with lakes, juveniles usually spend one to three years in fresh water before migrating to the ocean in the spring as smolts. However, in systems without lakes, many juveniles migrate to the ocean soon after emerging from the gravel.
    Sockeye salmon return to their natal stream to spawn after spending one to four years in the ocean. Mature sockeye salmon that have spent only one year in the ocean are called jacks and are, almost without exception, males. Once in the ocean, sockeye salmon grow quickly. While returning adults usually weigh between 4 and 8 pounds, weights in excess of 15 pounds have been reported. In some areas, populations of sockeye salmon remain in fresh water all their lives. This landlocked form of sockeye salmon, called "kokanee," reaches a much smaller maximum size than the anadromous form and rarely grows to be over 14 inches long. Food habits: While in fresh water, juvenile sockeye salmon feed mainly upon zooplankton (such as ostracods, cladocerans, and copepods), benthic amphipods. In the ocean, sockeye salmon continue to feed upon zooplankton (such as copepods, euphausids, ostracods, and crustacean larvae),
    </H1>They don't strike because they don't have it in them to feed that way.
    They don't chase after other fish, they swim around with their mouth open in areas with dense Zooplankton and other similar tiny floating microscopic creatures, they don't have to chase them around, just swim with the old pie hole open ...
    Once in a while one will chase the fly away from the Redd, but not the norm.
    Snagging is what is going on when you catch them with a hook, anything else is just something that happens every once in a while..

    I read from Capt Cooks report about showing up in the area which is now called Bristol Bay, they showed up at the same time as the Sokeye run, the sea was full of dancing jumping salmon, but try as they may, the men on the ship could not catch with a hook a single fish. They dropped their bait to the sea floor and caught Cod and Halibut etc, but they were indeed confused by the strange fish that would not BITE,,,

    Max
    When you come to a fork in the trail, take it!

    Rentals for Canoes, Kayaks, Rafts, boats serving the Kenai canoe trail system and the Kenai river for over 15 years. www.alaskacanoetrips.com

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,982

    Default

    there is no limit to hook gap on the kenai except in the russian area. Well, actually I think it is officialy 1/2" but I have never seen it enforced.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Banana Belt
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Akres,
    Sockeyes will take a bare hook trolled behind a flasher. This is a common angling technique in some areas. Do you think those fish are all just coincidentally snagged in the mouth?

    I have mixed feeling about the proposal. I don't doubt it will increase blatant snagging. On the other hand it may reduce the number of maimed fish -but if it causes an increase in snagging, will it really do that?

    If people are <i>truly</i> concerned about the fish and the streambanks, they should lobby for a reduction in the limits. I have little doubt that that would reduce pressure on the streambanks.

  20. #20

    Default Consultants

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Akres, not going to take the bait. Salmon have a brain the size of my fingernail. They react both to what they preceive as food but more importantly predators and other salmon. Therefore, to say all fish are snagged is baiting us. You and I know better.
    And neither are the Reds (going to take the bait).
    I just hope the BOF employ's the Myth Busters, when they consider studying this matter. Long held traditions and perceptions are difficult to shatter. To continue the charade, is in my opinion not being honest with ourselves or the general public. To get an honest opinion from individuals with self interests and perceived perceptions is not good. Too many of us have our own opinion and can substantiate our views with "facts". But, only if we ignore the "facts" we choose to and not consider all the evidence that is available.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •